European parlament has 3 major checks before accepting UK - Eu starting negotiating a trade deal. And this trade deal if similar to Eu Japan will not include services;fail one of this 3 subjects and EU will not accept any divorce bill;Ireland - UK borderhandling EU citizens in UK transparent to UK citizen in EUSettle accounts

The UK has followed the EU mandates to trigger Article 50, which started the 2 year countdown to leave the EU.

If the UK does not agree to any of the 3 items you mention it is still leaving the EU, how does the EU intend to keep the UK in the EU if they don't agreeon any of the items, are you saying the 27 members will automatically extend the UK member ship to ensure they agree to the EU demands?

In the negotiations, the UK can only request as they are the party leaving, the one's making demands are the EU.

So, hard Brexit, no problem. And you are still ignoring that a treaty between the UK and the EU would not be EU nor UK law, but an agreement reached between the two, under the EU law that the UK agreed to line by line. Keeping that in mind your argument just falls flat. best regardsThomas

Which treaty is this, the one that the UK and EU are abrogating by implementing Article 50?

You missed the point. UK law has nothing to do with the EU, the EU law is the one the UK agreed to, the EU never agreed to UK law. That means that there is no a single word in all of the EUs laws that the UK is not in 100% agreement with, while there are many laws in the UK that the EU is decidedly not in agreement with. That is how the UK constantly collides with EU courts.

The UK is leaving the EU, which means it is leaving the jurisdiction of the EU including all agreements that they previously signed and agreed to line by line.

Yes, that is exactly what it means if they leave without a treaty. If there will be a treaty, whatever jurisdiction both sides agreed on will be valid, and that will be EU jurisdiction and EU courts.

The EU is perfectly fine with both options, it is the UK that wants to eat the cake (=get a treaty) and keep it too (= no EU courts).

The UK has followed the EU mandates to trigger Article 50, which started the 2 year countdown to leave the EU.

Wow... the UK really followed laws they helped write and agreed to. Splendid!

If the UK does not agree to any of the 3 items you mention it is still leaving the EU, how does the EU intend to keep the UK in the EU if they don't agree

The EU has no intentions forcing the UK to do anything at all. They can leave without a treaty if they chose to. The EU Agenda is the only one that makes sense.

There is no point discussing the status of UK citizens in EU countries before both sides know who will pay for their respective health insurance, retirement and all those thing.There is no point discussing in how far the UK will participate in EU research programs, before it has been sattled how much they are going to contribute towards them and in how far they keep their commitments for ongoing programs.......

on any of the items, are you saying the 27 members will automatically extend the UK member ship to ensure they agree to the EU demands?

Nope, they will just be back to WTO tariffs and UK citizens living in the EU would be illegal.

In the negotiations, the UK can only request as they are the party leaving, the one's making demands are the EU.

you got that 180° degree wrong. The EU is very clear on the principles, those that the UK formed and agreed to, but those give the UK options. The UK side comes with demands.... a car dealership is not "demanding" money from you, they give you options to buy. You can always walk away without buying.

You missed the point. UK law has nothing to do with the EU, the EU law is the one the UK agreed to, the EU never agreed to UK law. That means that there is no a single word in all of the EUs laws that the UK is not in 100% agreement with, while there are many laws in the UK that the EU is decidedly not in agreement with. That is how the UK constantly collides with EU courts.

...and when the UK leaves, those EU laws will no longer apply, unless it is placed in a new treaty between both parties, which is what the negotiation is all about.

tommy1808 wrote:

Yes, that is exactly what it means if they leave without a treaty. If there will be a treaty, whatever jurisdiction both sides agreed on will be valid, and that will be EU jurisdiction and EU courts.

...so the negotiations are already completed since it must be the EU courts....that I think is where the debate comes in and I misunderstood the post, the EU position is EU courts or nothing else.

If there will be a treaty, whatever jurisdiction both sides agreed on will be valid, and that will be EU jurisdiction and EU courts.

That is incorrect. It is possible but I believe highly unlikely. It will more likely be a separate panel, perhaps similar to an arbitration one, made up of equal representatives from each side that can review and rule on which court should hold precedence. That is IF there is to be an agreement.

It can be an additional protocol for how cases are judged to be allowed into the ECHR. That avoids "overruling" the ECHR which would imply a higher authority than the ECHR.

Tugg

I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner

The EU has no intentions forcing the UK to do anything at all. They can leave without a treaty if they chose to. The EU Agenda is the only one that makes sense.

...which has never been defined since no one has previously left the EU, so un-chartered waters, look at the cost of the "divorce bill" it changes depending on who is speaking.

tommy1808 wrote:

There is no point discussing the status of UK citizens in EU countries before both sides know who will pay for their respective health insurance, retirement and all those thing.There is no point discussing in how far the UK will participate in EU research programs, before it has been sattled how much they are going to contribute towards them and in how far they keep their commitments for ongoing programs.......

I suspect it will be like the rest of the world who have expats living and working in their countries, if bought in by a business, that business and the individual negotiate a contract on taxes, benefits etc etc etc., if the individual retires, they meet the criteria of the host country, this is common the world over and nothing new. In the Bahamas we have lot's of expat's both as workers and retiree's with no problem.

As for research, foreign countries provide grants to each others research institutions or universities on a regular basis, also nothing new.I think I may be missing the issue that for most Europeans in the EU, national countries and how they work with each other has been dying away, as I have never been in the EU I am used to country to country dealings and in some respects, cannot understand the difficulties. Most countries in the world do not and have not had a EU type arrangement.

tommy1808 wrote:

Nope, they will just be back to WTO tariffs and UK citizens living in the EU would be illegal.

...which the EU is trying to avoid since all their citizens in the UK will also be illegal, both sides have the same issue.

tommy1808 wrote:

you got that 180° degree wrong. The EU is very clear on the principles, those that the UK formed and agreed to, but those give the UK options. The UK side comes with demands.... a car dealership is not "demanding" money from you, they give you options to buy. You can always walk away without buying.best regardsThomas

The UK had demands as a member and they were rejected as expected, so they took the next option which was to leave.Now they are in negotiations for what they would like, but as the member who is leaving a continuing union, they can only request additional benefits, not demand them, they have no authority to demand. I do not think the EU will be "selling" any of their principles as it would affect the other members of the continuing body, they can however, demand that the UK meet certain criteria to gain access to benefits of the union.

since the UKs human rights record is scary enough, they don´t get it on the balls by the ECHR all the time for no reason, that is exactly what your government can´t wait to start doing more, because without the ECHR they would have done more of it in the past.

Yeah, if and when we withdraw from the ECHR, we immediately join ranks with Saudi Arabia - women will have no rights and public executions every Friday.

tommy1808 wrote:

So, hard Brexit, no problem. And you are still ignoring that a treaty between the UK and the EU would not be EU nor UK law, but an agreement reached between the two, under the EU law that the UK agreed to line by line. Keeping that in mind your argument just falls flat.

So, you want the EU to accept UK courts using UK laws, that the EU has no stake writing in, but don´t want EU courts apply EU laws that the UK took part in drafting and agreed to every single word and dot?

You're not making sense - once the UK has left the EU, EU laws and courts will have zero jurisdiction in the UK. Why is that so hard for you to grasp? We won't care what EU laws and courts do within the EU.

Aesma wrote:

Once the UK is out of the EU, there is no outside court that can really decide things.

Indeed. It's not a difficult concept, really.

tommy1808 wrote:

Of course that way of thinking makes the UK a negotiation partner about as trust worth as Noth Korea.

Wow, with each post your dislike of the UK becomes clearer and clearer.

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.

Most EU citizens who move to the UK do so for work, where they pay taxs....most UK nationals who move to continental Europe are doing so for retirement. The later group are much more fiscally burdensome to their new state of residence.

Personally, I'm looking forward to the UK-EU Brexit talks failing. There will be plenty of cheap real estate on the Côte d'Azur as all the brits are forced to return back home. A buyers market for sure.

BestWestern wrote:

The pro Europeans didn't get the memo

EU people in UK = MigrantsUK People in EU = Expats

Sponger Migrants obviously don't deserve the same rights as professional Expats.

Hopefully some of the more intelligent readers will identify the source of above.

The demand that the European Court of Justice be the body which rules on these particular matters post-Brexit is going to be what ultimately kills it - there is no way the government would, in the face of Brexit, bind the UK to the jurisdiction of a foreign court, especially an EU court, that would be political suicide...

Most EU citizens who move to the UK do so for work, where they pay taxs....most UK nationals who move to continental Europe are doing so for retirement. The later group are much more fiscally burdensome to their new state of residence.

I'm not a Brexiteer, and while what you say is largely true, we also see a lot of eastern Europeans coming to the UK for lower paid jobs who then send the majority of their earnings back to families in their home countries, where that monies spending power is vastly greater....

So yes, while they do contribute via taxes, they are actually taking a lot of money out of the UK economy as well.

And again, I'm not a Brexiteer, so please don't jump on me like I am one.

we also see a lot of eastern Europeans coming to the UK for lower paid jobs who then send the majority of their earnings back to families in their home countries, where that monies spending power is vastly greater....

So yes, while they do contribute via taxes, they are actually taking a lot of money out of the UK economy as well.

Fair point, but if they are paying income taxes it helps to cover whatever costs they might be causing the state. The same can't really be said for the expat retirees who live on the Costa del Sol etc. Would be interesting to know the exact costs that each group puts on the respective states.

we also see a lot of eastern Europeans coming to the UK for lower paid jobs who then send the majority of their earnings back to families in their home countries, where that monies spending power is vastly greater....

So yes, while they do contribute via taxes, they are actually taking a lot of money out of the UK economy as well.

Fair point, but if they are paying income taxes it helps to cover whatever costs they might be causing the state. The same can't really be said for the expat retirees who live on the Costa del Sol etc. Would be interesting to know the exact costs that each group puts on the respective states.

Well, what arent the retirees paying for?

They should be paying property taxes, VAT etc just the same as at home. Local taxes for local services (refuse collection etc) just the same as at home. If they run a car then they pay fuel duty and road taxes just the same as at home. Healthcare charges are billed back to the UK's NHS, thats not a charge Spain bears. What else?

They should be paying property taxes, VAT etc just the same as at home. Local taxes for local services (refuse collection etc) just the same as at home. If they run a car then they pay fuel duty and road taxes just the same as at home. Healthcare charges are billed back to the UK's NHS, thats not a charge Spain bears. What else?

Not so fast!! Your comments about healthcare charges are not true. If someone is a VISITOR, then it's true. However, if someone is living there they can not use the EHIC. Unless they are retired and receiving a state pension and have notified DWP of their desire to move their healthcare coverage, then they pay themselves. We are in the process of moving to Spain, and I just went through the entire process of getting a NIE. I had to get private healthcare as a requirement. I do get a small UK state pension, but I am not convinced the current deal will survive Brexit talks. And it's in my best interest to have healthcare coverage. Should the current deal survive Brexit talks, I might consider using my S-1 and move my UK coverage to Spain.

Not so fast!! Your comments about healthcare charges are not true. If someone is a VISITOR, then it's true. However, if someone is living there they can not use the EHIC. Unless they are retired and receiving a state pension and have notified DWP of their desire to move their healthcare coverage, then they pay themselves. We are in the process of moving to Spain, and I just went through the entire process of getting a NIE. I had to get private healthcare as a requirement. I do get a small UK state pension, but I am not convinced the current deal will survive Brexit talks. And it's in my best interest to have healthcare coverage. Should the current deal survive Brexit talks, I might consider using my S-1 and move my UK coverage to Spain.

Uh, as we are talking about *retirees* doesn't what you say actually *confirm* what I said (in general), that the UK bears the cost of the retirees healthcare (unless they pay for it themselves - they definitely aren't getting it for free from the Spanish government...)?

Whether its termed "billing it to the NHS" or "moving their healthcare coverage", its the same basic thing - you submit an S1 form to the Spanish healthcare system, they then bill the costs back to the UK.

since the UKs human rights record is scary enough, they don´t get it on the balls by the ECHR all the time for no reason, that is exactly what your government can´t wait to start doing more, because without the ECHR they would have done more of it in the past.

Yeah, if and when we withdraw from the ECHR, we immediately join ranks with Saudi Arabia - women will have no rights and public executions every Friday.

I am not as pessimistic as you about that.

tommy1808 wrote:

So, hard Brexit, no problem. And you are still ignoring that a treaty between the UK and the EU would not be EU nor UK law, but an agreement reached between the two, under the EU law that the UK agreed to line by line. Keeping that in mind your argument just falls flat.

So, you want the EU to accept UK courts using UK laws, that the EU has no stake writing in, but don´t want EU courts apply EU laws that the UK took part in drafting and agreed to every single word and dot?

You're not making sense - once the UK has left the EU, EU laws and courts will have zero jurisdiction in the UK. Why is that so hard for you to grasp? We won't care what EU laws and courts do within the EU.

Nah, your government doesn´t make any sense. If there is no European Court jurisdiction over the treaty concerning citizens rights, then there won´t be a treaty. Very simple. Well, for everything else it can be an arbitration court, logical option would be the international court of arbitration, which unfortunately is also in Paris .... Swiss perhaps? Sweden? Or you want a Chinese arbitration court to make legally binding decisions over the UK and EU?That is the sort of sh*tsandwich you get if an utterly incompetent government makes ad hoc decisions like that, without investing a single thought before hand. First word from the negotiating table "The UK government doesn´t seem to have a negotiating position yet. So your circle of clowns couldn´t come up with a negotiating position in the same time it took the whole rest of the EU to agree on one. That is Trump level diplomatic incompetence.

tommy1808 wrote:

Of course that way of thinking makes the UK a negotiation partner about as trust worth as Noth Korea.

Wow, with each post your dislike of the UK becomes clearer and clearer.

Pavlov at its best. If a foreign national doesn´t agree on policy with you, he must hate your country. Last polls:

if Brexit vote was today: 46/42% for remain ... Was brexit a mistake: 46/45 for yesShould the UK remain a EU member: 51/44% for yesDo you approve how the government is handling Brexit negotiations: 56/44% for disapprove.

Like you, I fail to grasp why some folks who are willing to divest themselves of their national sovereignty want everyone else to follow in their folly.

Good to know that you disagree with the idea of universal human rights, which are pointless without giving jurisdiction away. Dictators allover the planet applaud you, Kim Jong is happy because you think there is nothing wrong with him getting nukes....

Good to know that you disagree with the idea of universal human rights, which are pointless without giving jurisdiction away. Dictators allover the planet applaud you, Kim Jong is happy because you think there is nothing wrong with him getting nukes....

Utter nonsense. And you know it.

Human rights are inalienable and are endowed by [their] Creator, as stated in our Declaration of Independence. As an avowed atheist you might take issue with this.

And to crown your nonsense you create a fictitious strawman with respect to my unannounced position regarding nukes in North Korea. How childish can you be?

I happen to think that we are going to be forced, in the not too distant future, to lunch a massive preemptive non-nuclear missile attack against North Korean rocket and artillery sites.

We shall see.

Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.

If *this* is the sort of EU national we will be leaving behind, I might just change my stance and be *for* Brexit...

Does that mean you want the UK to crash and burn or that you rather have the UK under the jurisdiction of a Chinese Arbitration court??

best regardsThomas

Hyperbole because neither will happen - much to your sadness, I bet.

Sure, we might not do as well as we have in recent past for a while, but we won't crash and burn - there are plenty of other opportunities out there to chase, the EU isnt the be all end all.

Remember, the UK has been allowed to avoid the disaster that is the Euro because we are one of two "unique" economies - the other being Denmark. That doesn't fundamentally change - sure, our economy might contract somewhat, but we were fine before we joined the common market and we will be fine after we exit the EU.

And where are you getting this ludicrous crap about China? Oh, thats right, you pulled it out of your arse and are now running with it as if it were fact.

Nobody can deny the UK the right to be fully sovereign again and I think many support this idea. But UK leaders can not believe that UK will get to keep all the goodies of being in the EU, while the EU nations have to give up all advantages they gained. It already starts with language used by the UK negotiators. People moving from the EU to the UK are immigrants and the people moving from the UK to the EU are called expats. Those stupid tricks will not work.

It is the same with the common market. The UK wishes unlimited access to the common market, but wishes to protect its own market and also wishes to not be bound by any normative decision made for the common market. This can not work, as a common market needs common standards. At the moment it reminds me of the EU agreeing to drive on the right side of the road, with the UK coming in and saying that they are going to drive on the left side and demand the right to drive on the left side on the roads in Europe too. This can only lead to one big crash.

Nobody can deny the UK the right to be fully sovereign again and I think many support this idea..

Exactly. And no one is even trying to deny the UK full sovereignty. Only IF they want a treaty, they won´t get it under UK jurisdiction. If they don´t want that, they can just go without a deal. Will hurt them more than the EU, but won´t ruin the country and it is self decided, fully sourveign.

The hole "Ok, the EU has to give up its principles, that we helped shape and put into law, for us to land more softly" is just BS they have to over...

Does that mean you want the UK to crash and burn or that you rather have the UK under the jurisdiction of a Chinese Arbitration court??

best regardsThomas

Hyperbole because neither will happen - much to your sadness, I bet.

Ah, so you are like those Anti-Darwinist that pick out one item not yet explained, offer no alternative and just claim evolution isn´t a fact.

Nope, just responding to you...

So, what is your alternative for Jurisdiction? You* won´t accept European courts, by the same reasoning the EU has even less motivation to accept UK courts and you don´t want arbitration courts.

The point is is that the EU want jurisdiction over UK actions within UK borders - which should be the jurisdiction of UK courts.

By all means, the EU courts can have jurisdiction over UK citizens living in EU countries - no one disputes that and no one is trying to say otherwise.

This is no different to any other treaty or agreement between countries - its extremely rare to find a treaty where one of the members has given away complete jurisdiction to the other member(s), it simply doesnt happen.

Even the WTO doesn't have automatic jurisdiction when it comes to individual agreements between countries.

For a trade agreement between China and the EU, you don't find the EU demanding full jurisdiction over Chinese nationals actions in China under that agreement, nope. Each party retains its own jurisdiction and the agreement is deemed to be breached if they don't sort out the issues in their own jurisdiction, which usually means its void.

So whats the problem with that happening here? Oh, wait, its a simple matter of you not considering that (on purpose, I rather think). You immediately jump to the nuclear option, when we are actually engaged in a snow ball fight.

In short: You want no deal. That is fine with me, the UK will be all right, recessions pass, even self made ones.

If it results in a no-deal, I have no issue with that - at this point, with the crap the EU is pulling with regard to Gibraltar and Scotland, they can go whistle. If it means expats being told to leave and return to the UK, again I have no problem with that - thats something the expats will have to deal with.

European parlament has 3 major checks before accepting UK - Eu starting negotiating a trade deal. And this trade deal if similar to Eu Japan will not include services;fail one of this 3 subjects and EU will not accept any divorce bill;Ireland - UK borderhandling EU citizens in UK transparent to UK citizen in EUSettle accounts

The UK has followed the EU mandates to trigger Article 50, which started the 2 year countdown to leave the EU.

If the UK does not agree to any of the 3 items you mention it is still leaving the EU, how does the EU intend to keep the UK in the EU if they don't agreeon any of the items, are you saying the 27 members will automatically extend the UK member ship to ensure they agree to the EU demands?

In the negotiations, the UK can only request as they are the party leaving, the one's making demands are the EU.

This is the point. UK can leave, but will will not have a trade agreement even for products.

Today the situation is complicated for Finanial services but without a free trade agreement even other industries like car manufactoring will move.

I think that for EU it will be a good thing that UK leaves and get a Norway like position. UK has blocked EU development during years and it seems like Germany and France now can move EU into something more advanced for Schengen, economic area, defence etc.

If UK opts to apply again to EU in one generation it will not be the same EU that it left.

The point is is that the EU want jurisdiction over UK actions within UK borders - which should be the jurisdiction of UK courts.

And that is just flat out wrong. The EU wants the agreement between the UK and the EU to be not just enforceable by UK courts. Every complaint still would have to go through UK courts first, they would just not be allowed to be the ultimate arbitration authority, which makes complete and total sense, since you don´t sign treaties that can only be enforced by the courts of one, and only one, signatory.

By all means, the EU courts can have jurisdiction over UK citizens living in EU countries - no one disputes that and no one is trying to say otherwise.

So, you make a strawman argument and call it strawman argument right away yourself.

This is no different to any other treaty or agreement between countries - its extremely rare to find a treaty where one of the members has given away complete jurisdiction to the other member(s), it simply doesnt happen.

It is rather the norm, usually by agreed arbitration court.

For a trade agreement between China and the EU, you don't find the EU demanding full jurisdiction over Chinese nationals actions in China under that agreement, nope. Each party retains its own jurisdiction and the agreement is deemed to be breached if they don't sort out the issues in their own jurisdiction, which usually means its void.

please name the treaties between the EU and China that can only be arbitrated in front of Chinese courts.

So whats the problem with that happening here? Oh, wait, its a simple matter of you not considering that (on purpose, I rather think). You immediately jump to the nuclear option, when we are actually engaged in a snow ball fight.

What nuclear option? At least the EU does give the UK options, while the UK doesn´t give any.

If it results in a no-deal, I have no issue with that - at this point, with the crap the EU is pulling with regard to Gibraltar and Scotland, they can go whistle. If it means expats being told to leave and return to the UK, again I have no problem with that - thats something the expats will have to deal with.

Yeah, really bad that the UK government doesn´t care about the expats nearly as much as the EU cares about its expats.

Of course that way of thinking makes the UK a negotiation partner about as trust worth as Noth Korea.

Wow, with each post your dislike of the UK becomes clearer and clearer.

Bear up, cousin. When the going for him got tougher on this side of the pond he had to cast about for other countries to assail.

Like you, I fail to grasp why some folks who are willing to divest themselves of their national sovereignty want everyone else to follow in their folly.

Wow Bob, never thought you would come over and talk about EU, since you believe foreigners have no business in threads dealing with other parts of the world. Thank you for changing your mind, I welcome your views.

Wow Bob, never thought you would come over and talk about EU, since you believe foreigners have no business in threads dealing with other parts of the world. Thank you for changing your mind, I welcome your views.

Don´t you know, Trumpista´s, just like their cult leader, know everything better than the rest of the world. Just like Healthcare and international diplomacy are easy. So, the whole "don´t utter opinions" about us, only applies one way. Just like international law only applies to countries other than the US.

Not so fast!! Your comments about healthcare charges are not true. If someone is a VISITOR, then it's true. However, if someone is living there they can not use the EHIC. Unless they are retired and receiving a state pension and have notified DWP of their desire to move their healthcare coverage, then they pay themselves. We are in the process of moving to Spain, and I just went through the entire process of getting a NIE. I had to get private healthcare as a requirement. I do get a small UK state pension, but I am not convinced the current deal will survive Brexit talks. And it's in my best interest to have healthcare coverage. Should the current deal survive Brexit talks, I might consider using my S-1 and move my UK coverage to Spain.

Uh, as we are talking about *retirees* doesn't what you say actually *confirm* what I said (in general), that the UK bears the cost of the retirees healthcare (unless they pay for it themselves - they definitely aren't getting it for free from the Spanish government...)?

Whether its termed "billing it to the NHS" or "moving their healthcare coverage", its the same basic thing - you submit an S1 form to the Spanish healthcare system, they then bill the costs back to the UK.

Ok semantics it is. Unless you are over the UK retirement age for your birth year, you will have to have private health insurance. So, there quite a few UK citizens living in Spain who are under the mandated retirement age. The UK DOES NOT pay/subsidize their health coverage. They can not rely on the EHIC and in order to get their NIE, they must provide proof of health coverage as well as certain income thresholds.

Your statement made it sound as if EVERYONE would be covered in some way/shape/form by the UK and that is not the way it works.

I think that for EU it will be a good thing that UK leaves and get a Norway like position. UK has blocked EU development during years and it seems like Germany and France now can move EU into something more advanced for Schengen, economic area, defence etc.

If UK opts to apply again to EU in one generation it will not be the same EU that it left.

Yes, it would be great if the UK is willing to take a position like Norway, it would be the best for everyone (don't think it is political achievable though). But like I have said before, the UK must decide which relationship they want with the EU, all options are open, from a Norwegian, Swiss, Moroccan, Ukraine, Canadian, Japanese, Perusian position to the position of North Korea. The bottom line, the more access you want, the more EU rules you have to accept.

If the UK politician will hang on to the false statement: access without the drawbacks, no deal will be reached and Brittian will leave with no deal: a hard Brexit. It is up to the UK, not the EU.

If the UK politician will hang on to the false statement: access without the drawbacks, no deal will be reached and Brittian will leave with no deal: a hard Brexit. It is up to the UK, not the EU.

It is unfortunate that they are all lumped in together, those in government and those in opposition in parliament.Government politicians for the most part appear to be realistic, no deal is better than a bad deal which is now called hard Brexit, a number in the opposition and persons outside parliament seem to think that the UK citizens voted leave, but that only meant leave, it did not mean giving up EU laws, courts, immigration rules and regulations, trade rules and regulations, freedom of movement, etc etc etc - so what exactly did leave mean?At least that is the impression one get's following all the rhetoric.

Bigger issue now is the position that Brexit will strengthen or diminish the devolved powers for Scotland and Wales, an internal issue which they appear to be tagging on, it has been a long time but I will find it interesting to read how the UK - Scotland and Wales - went into the EU as a part of the UK, when the devolved powers were granted and what role the EU played in that "devolution".

UK citizens voted leave, but that only meant leave, it did not mean giving up EU laws, courts, immigration rules and regulations, trade rules and regulations, freedom of movement, etc etc etc - so what exactly did leave mean?

you may want to ask the question to the Swiss or Norwegian forum members, that have exactly that.

Bigger issue now is the position that Brexit will strengthen or diminish the devolved powers for Scotland and Wales, an internal issue which they appear to be tagging on, it has been a long time but I will find it interesting to read how the UK - Scotland and Wales - went into the EU as a part of the UK, when the devolved powers were granted and what role the EU played in that "devolution".

The Irish/Northern Irish border will be a bigger issue by far. At least if the UK wants to control its borders, which then will be a border between northern Ireland and the Republic.Nobody wants a hard border there, but the UK better gets used to the idea that everyone with a Schengen Visa can just walk across into the UK...

From what I've read, Mrs May's offer seems to be quite fair. Though it is hardly surprising that neither side wishes to back down on the issue. As I understand it, her offer is dependent on the EU reciprocating those rights for Britons in Europe - so it doesn't seem like she is asking for anything more for British Citizens in Europe than she is willing to give to European Citizens in Britain.

If you read the official position of the EU you'll see that the EU offer is fully reciprocal.

Not so fast!! Your comments about healthcare charges are not true. If someone is a VISITOR, then it's true. However, if someone is living there they can not use the EHIC. Unless they are retired and receiving a state pension and have notified DWP of their desire to move their healthcare coverage, then they pay themselves. We are in the process of moving to Spain, and I just went through the entire process of getting a NIE. I had to get private healthcare as a requirement. I do get a small UK state pension, but I am not convinced the current deal will survive Brexit talks. And it's in my best interest to have healthcare coverage. Should the current deal survive Brexit talks, I might consider using my S-1 and move my UK coverage to Spain.

Uh, as we are talking about *retirees* doesn't what you say actually *confirm* what I said (in general), that the UK bears the cost of the retirees healthcare (unless they pay for it themselves - they definitely aren't getting it for free from the Spanish government...)?.

The EU compensation mechanism covers approximately 50-60% of the actual cost.

There was a link on that on an earlier discussion on retirees and Brexit.

From what I've read, Mrs May's offer seems to be quite fair. Though it is hardly surprising that neither side wishes to back down on the issue. As I understand it, her offer is dependent on the EU reciprocating those rights for Britons in Europe - so it doesn't seem like she is asking for anything more for British Citizens in Europe than she is willing to give to European Citizens in Britain.

If you read the official position of the EU you'll see that the EU offer is fully reciprocal.

Yes, but they're two different offers. Mrs May has put her offer on the table and has stated that in order to fulfill that offer, the EU must reciprocate. The EU have been pushing for a different, more liberal offer.

And that is just flat out wrong. The EU wants the agreement between the UK and the EU to be not just enforceable by UK courts. Every complaint still would have to go through UK courts first, they would just not be allowed to be the ultimate arbitration authority, which makes complete and total sense, since you don´t sign treaties that can only be enforced by the courts of one, and only one, signatory.

That doesn't make sense, and yes the courts of one signatory do usually enforce the treaty in their own courts. And the other signatory enforces the same treaty in their courts. If there is a disagreement, that is large enough, the matter is revisited between the signatories and a new element is added.

And what you are suggesting does not make sense, are you saying the USA and the EU can sign a treaty and agree to have a court, an arbitrator, that would be above their respective highest courts? Above the ECHR or the USSC? You can't do that. Seriously. As I stated above, you would instead create rules/protocols that would guide which court would have "rights" to which types of cases (where did the thing occur, who is bringing the action and what is the action about etc.). That way you do not create a conflict of having a court superior to a sovereign entity's courts. That is how treaties are structured.

And yes, you will still have disagreements about how ones citizens are treated. No treaty or court is perfect.

Tugg

I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner

you may want to ask the question to the Swiss or Norwegian forum members, that have exactly that.

Switzerland does not, and the EU is now demanding that the Swiss accept the European Court's jurisdiction as the price for further trade cooperation. I dearly hope the Swiss manage to say no - once you accept a foreign court's jurisdiction, you are no longer an independant country.

Same goes for the UK. European Court jurisdiction over the UK or anyone in it should be absolutely, 100% out of the question.

Switzerland does not, and the EU is now demanding that the Swiss accept the European Court's jurisdiction as the price for further trade cooperation. I dearly hope the Swiss manage to say no - once you accept a foreign court's jurisdiction, you are no longer an independant country.

I hope you do know why the EU wants the jurisdiction of the European Court included into the relationship between Switzerland and the EU? If you get the level of integration of both economies you want to ensure that what you agreed is put into national law at the same time as it is for yourself (or at least not running the risk that it will take years to be implemented). The EU learned that a many seperate billaterals isn't ideal as well and therefore pushes for the European Court towards Switerland. In essence they're giving the same deal to Switzerland as the one currently on the table for the UK (or better, the UK gets the same deal as Switzerland). The only exception is that Switzerland already has the billaterals and thus can decide that the level of coopration is enough whilst the UK has no billateral at present. Moreover, should the EU give in towards the UK, it doesn't have any chance convincing Switzerland to accept the jurisdiction of the European Court. Hence why the EU has to play hardball on this issue with the UK.

Switzerland does not, and the EU is now demanding that the Swiss accept the European Court's jurisdiction as the price for further trade cooperation. I dearly hope the Swiss manage to say no - once you accept a foreign court's jurisdiction, you are no longer an independant country.

LJ wrote:

Dreadnought wrote:

Switzerland does not, and the EU is now demanding that the Swiss accept the European Court's jurisdiction as the price for further trade cooperation. I dearly hope the Swiss manage to say no - once you accept a foreign court's jurisdiction, you are no longer an independant country.

I hope you do know why the EU wants the jurisdiction of the European Court included into the relationship between Switzerland and the EU? If you get the level of integration of both economies you want to ensure that what you agreed is put into national law at the same time as it is for yourself (or at least not running the risk that it will take years to be implemented). The EU learned that a many seperate billaterals isn't ideal as well and therefore pushes for the European Court towards Switerland. In essence they're giving the same deal to Switzerland as the one currently on the table for the UK (or better, the UK gets the same deal as Switzerland). The only exception is that Switzerland already has the billaterals and thus can decide that the level of coopration is enough whilst the UK has no billateral at present. Moreover, should the EU give in towards the UK, it doesn't have any chance convincing Switzerland to accept the jurisdiction of the European Court. Hence why the EU has to play hardball on this issue with the UK.

Sorry but I do not think that is proper or appropriate. Let me ask you, would the EU accept the Swiss courts to have superior jurisdiction over the EU?

Tugg

I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner

you may want to ask the question to the Swiss or Norwegian forum members, that have exactly that.

Switzerland does not, and the EU is now demanding that the Swiss accept the European Court's jurisdiction as the price for further trade cooperation. I dearly hope the Swiss manage to say no - once you accept a foreign court's jurisdiction, you are no longer an independant country.

Ah ... another Kim Jong Un fan. Or is having ones nukes nukes too much souveranity for you? Technically every single nation on this planet is under the jurisdiction of an international court.

It makes even less sense for a country that recently voted to leave the EU.

Dreadnought wrote:

Same goes for the UK. European Court jurisdiction over the UK or anyone in it should be absolutely, 100% out of the question.

Indeed, leaving the EU should mean leaving the EU. The political blowback if the UK Government accepted ECJ jurisdiction over any EU-related matter (e.g. EU citizens remaining in the UK post-Brexit) would be tremendous.

For clarity, I say these things as someone who voted to remain in the EU.

LJ wrote:

Moreover, should the EU give in towards the UK, it doesn't have any chance convincing Switzerland to accept the jurisdiction of the European Court. Hence why the EU has to play hardball on this issue with the UK.

Rather than explain why the EU wants it, the more salient point is, why Switzerland doesn't want it. The reality with the Swiss position is like many other treaty or bilateral agreements where there's a dispute - neither side has jurisdiction over the other.

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.

Indeed, leaving the EU should mean leaving the EU. The political blowback if the UK Government accepted ECJ jurisdiction over any EU-related matter (e.g. EU citizens remaining in the UK post-Brexit) would be tremendous.

Then Brittian chooses a hard Brexit and what is the political blowback for that?

Since my previous post seems to have been ignored, I was talking about Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) or investment court system (ICS).

This system is definitely above national courts (even US ones) and its main use is for multinational companies to sue governments into submission.

If you want to regulate the reached agreements, you need some kind of independent court to settle disputes. Don't know if it is needed in this case, or in the case with the ISDS with countries with well developed juristical systems.

Indeed, leaving the EU should mean leaving the EU. The political blowback if the UK Government accepted ECJ jurisdiction over any EU-related matter (e.g. EU citizens remaining in the UK post-Brexit) would be tremendous.

Then Brittian chooses a hard Brexit and what is the political blowback for that?

Why do you think they are always complaining about the EU, making one unacceptable proposal after the other, knowing damn well they are unacceptable?

They set up the public to blame the EU for everything that is going to happen.

Since my previous post seems to have been ignored, I was talking about Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) or investment court system (ICS).

This system is definitely above national courts (even US ones) and its main use is for multinational companies to sue governments into submission.

If you want to regulate the reached agreements, you need some kind of independent court to settle disputes. Don't know if it is needed in this case, or in the case with the ISDS with countries with well developed juristical systems.

Meanwhile, Duchy starts another thread by a posting an article and a one line comment to stir up the pot and push his pro Eu agenda. I can't get around the fact how people on the continent can't respect a diplomatic vote.